UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4197

SAMUEL MCCRAE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.

(CR-91-261-D)

Submitted: August 11, 1998

Decided: September 1, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States

Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Samuel McCrae pled guilty to breaking into a post office in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115 (West Supp. 1998). The district court

imposed a sentence of thirty months imprisonment, thirty-six months

supervised release, restitution, and a special assessment. After serving

his sentence, McCrae was released on supervision. Because McCrae

violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court

revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four

months imprisonment to run consecutively to the state sentence he

was then serving. McCrae noted a timely appeal and his attorney filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),

in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in

this appeal. Nonetheless, counsel presented this court with one

nascent issue. The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed and

McCrae has not responded. Because we find the claim raised by counsel to be without merit and can discern no other error in the record

on appeal, we affirm McCrae's conviction and sentence.

McCrae contends that the district court erred by ordering that his

sentence for violating his supervised release conditions run consecutively, instead of concurrently, to the state sentence, which McCrae

was serving at the time of his supervised release revocation hearing.

At the revocation hearing, McCrae requested a sentence concurrent

with the state sentence he was then serving. However, the district

court imposed a consecutive sentence. While U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (1997), calls for a term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release to be consecutive to any sentence the defendant is serving, the Chapter 7 policy

statements are not binding on the district court. See United States v.

Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 641-42 (4th Cir. 1995). The sentencing court

noted that the only discretion it had in this case was whether or not

the federal sentence should run concurrently or consecutively to

 2
McCrae's state sentence. The court found "that there [was] no sufficient cause [] shown to do other than run the sentence consecutive."

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

McCrae's conviction and sentence. We deny defense counsel's

motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client,

in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3